Recommended Posts

Geocaching HQ is thrilled to announce the release of Virtual Rewards, a project to reward some of geocaching’s great contributors, while also introducing a limited number of newVirtual Cachesfor the enjoyment of the entire geocaching community.

Starting today, approximately 4,000 geocachers in 63 countries around the world will receive emails with information about their Virtual Reward. This group is made up largely of the top 1% of quality cache hiders from countries with at least 100 hiders. We created an algorithm to identify these people based on overall cache quality andcache health. Active community volunteers are also receiving a Virtual Reward as a thank you for giving their time and talent to support the geocaching community.

Those selected for a Virtual Reward have one year to submit a Virtual Cache for publication. You may see new Virtuals published in the next few days, or several months from now. New caches resulting from Virtual Rewards must comply withspecific guidelines, so it could take time for the cache listings to work through the review process.

We expect this news is exciting to many in the community, but it may also raise some questions. We’ll try to answer a few of the most obvious questions here. We’ve also released anepisode of the Inside Geocaching HQ podcast, where you can hear more information.

Yay, Virtuals are back!

Not exactly. Yes, we’re hoping to see up to 4,000 new Virtual Caches in the next year. But we want to make it clear that Virtuals remain agrandfathered cache type.

I own great caches. Why wasn’t I selected for a Virtual Reward?

There are certainly more than 4,000 awesome cache hiders in the world, but we had to draw a line somewhere. We found that limiting this release to the top 1% of the results from our algorithm allowed for an ideal disbursement of new Virtual Caches around the world. No algorithm is perfect, ours included. We favored quality over quantity, but in creating our algorithm, we are sure that some great hiders were missed.

Can you describe the algorithm?

We are not sharing the algorithm. But we can say it factors in geocaching activity, geocache quality, and geocache health. The algorithm heavily favors cache quality over quantity.

Are Virtual Rewards distributed evenly among countries?

No. Virtual Rewards are intended as a reward for top hiders. Therefore, they were given in proportion to the number of cache owners in each country. Most countries (those with 100 or more cache hiders) were awarded a number of Virtual Rewards equivalent to 1% of the total cache owner population. Cache owners from countries with fewer than 100 cache hiders were grouped together. The top 1% of cache owners from that group also received a Virtual Reward. In total, cache owners from 63 countries received Virtual Rewards.

Why not just make Virtual Caches available for everyone to hide?

Because today’s Virtual Caches are rare, and because the remaining Virtuals tend to be well-liked, people often forget (or maybe never knew) that many problems led to the grandfathering of Virtuals in 2005.

The Virtual Cache type was originally created so people could place hides where physical caches were not permitted, or where muggles were so heavy that a physical cache was not practical. While the intent of this cache type was positive, it created significant problems for reviewers and often led to poor cache quality. Some people used Virtual Caches as a shortcut to create basic caches that did not require maintenance. Guidelines were eventually updated to require Virtuals to have special qualities to set them apart from other caches. However, that introduced so much subjectivity that the review process became difficult for both reviewers and cachers. The decision was finally made to grandfather Virtual Caches and no longer permit this type of cache unless we could find a way to avoid the aforementioned issues.

We're hoping this limited Virtual Rewards release will help minimize the previous problems with Virtuals, while delivering more opportunities for the community to enjoy this beloved cache type. Most importantly, it’s a fun reward for people who have contributed so much to the game.

We don’t have plans for anything beyond this release. But we’re always trying to think of ways to encourage quality (and healthy) cache hides, so who knows what the future may bring.

Have you considered a special icon or cache type for Virtual Rewards?

Creating a new cache type is a huge project for Geocaching HQ’s developers and engineers. It would not have been possible to launch Virtual Rewards in a timely manner if a new cache type was part of the project. Some cachers might see these new Virtuals as being different from those published in the past. But the experience of finding a Virtual is the same as before, so we felt it best to use the existing Virtual Cache type.

Could an account receive more than one Virtual Reward?

No, only one Virtual Reward per account.

Can a Virtual Reward recipient give their reward to someone else?

No, adoptions are not permitted.

We will update the blog post if we hear of further common questions regarding Virtual Rewards. In the meantime, congratulations to everyone who received a Virtual Reward! We’re looking forward to seeing some cool ideas for new Virtual Caches, and we’re sure geocachers around the world will enjoy finding them!

Share this post

Link to post

This was pretty close to the last news I expected to read today. Seriously. I figured I'd read about a working warp-drive before I read about new Virtuals being published. Well done, HQ, welllllll done.

Share this post

Link to post

I was quite confused when I received an email about owning a new virtual. Quite the pressure on me to come up with something worthwhile, especially since I've pretty much given up on ever hiding another geocache.

Share this post

Link to post

Wow! The first one published and it has an ALR! You MUST POST A PHOTO of yourself at the location.

I guess the rules are different for the new Virtuals?

See the guidelines linked in the OP. Requiring a photo is allowed so long as the finder's face is not required in the photo. In the virtual you referenced, the CO states " you don't need to show your face is you don't want to."

Share this post

Link to post

See the guidelines linked in the OP. Requiring a photo is allowed so long as the finder's face is not required in the photo. In the virtual you referenced, the CO states " you don't need to show your face is you don't want to."

So the rules are different for the new Virtuals...

Quote

Acceptable logging tasks

Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.

Tasks for the finder to fulfill (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).

Photos of the location or a GPS device/smartphone at the location.

Photos of geocacher at the location, as long as a face is not required in the photo.

Share this post

Link to post

Thank you. This is a truly brilliant solution to satisfy the yearning for virtuals. I don't suppose the honorees will be allowed to publish webcam caches if they'd rather?

That would be interesting if at some point they did a similar thing for Webcam listings sometime in the future. Different set of rules obviously, let alone maintenance concerns, but it would be nice; they can be quite fun to do too.

Share this post

Link to post

I am happy. I do not expect to be within algorithm for a number or reasons, but I have long stated that I thought virtuals could back if the numbers were limited to specific types of cachers and/or specific locations. I can't wait to have time to read more about this and see what comes of it.

If Virtuals with ALRs are allowed, that Help Center text may need some adjustments.

I don't think the Help Center text needs to be changed, as it specifies "physical" caches. Certainly ALR's have always been allowed for non-physical caches - EC's, Virtuals, Webcams.

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. The only exception to this rule is challenge caches.

Share this post

Link to post

That's nice to know I guess. How does an algorithm know the "quality" of a cache?

Do favorite points fit into that?

- There's a lot of older, popular hides that have few favorite points simply because they were added years after placed, and not many back-logged their FPs.

You're essentially asking us to share the algorithm.

Sorry, can't share any details about it.

I can understand why you might not want to share the algorithm. Once it's known we might start seeing some CO's change their approach to hiding in order to "qualify" as one of the elite.

For example, one way to improve a cache health score is to avoid placing any caches that will be difficult to find, which might lead to an accumulation of DNFs. Another way to reduce DNFs or even NM logs would be for a CO to allow throwdowns. Others might be sitting on 80 hides, but will toss out 20 more in order to meet the 100 hides minimum. Unless favorite points (as a percentage) are factored in, this new feature (which I like in general) might encourage quantity over quality in order to make the elite list.

Share this post

Link to post

I am happy. I do not expect to be within algorithm for a number or reasons, but I have long stated that I thought virtuals could back if the numbers were limited to specific types of cachers and/or specific locations. I can't wait to have time to read more about this and see what comes of it.

So am I... I dont want to be a virtual owner... too much drama that come with it. Its not worth it for me. However, I happy to see it coming back.

Share this post

Link to post

What a nice surprise! It will be interesting to see what new Virtuals result from this effort. I also think it's great that the announcement touched on the history of issues with Virtuals that got them grandfathered back in 2005.

7 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I can understand why you might not want to share the algorithm. Once it's known we might start seeing some CO's change their approach to hiding in order to "qualify" as one of the elite.

For example, one way to improve a cache health score is to avoid placing any caches that will be difficult to find, which might lead to an accumulation of DNFs. Another way to reduce DNFs or even NM logs would be for a CO to allow throwdowns. Others might be sitting on 80 hides, but will toss out 20 more in order to meet the 100 hides minimum. Unless favorite points (as a percentage) are factored in, this new feature (which I like in general) might encourage quantity over quality in order to make the elite list.

I would think that the risk of sharing the algorithm would be criticisms and complaints from cachers that think the algorithm wasn't built correctly and/or think they should've been identified as part of the top 1%. I'm not sure if a lot of cachers will be changing their ways in the hopes of qualifying for a future reward that may or may not happen, but if CO's take care of NM's in a more timely manner then that would be a good side-effect.

The "100 hides minimum" applies to how the Virtual Rewards were distributed to countries, or groups of countries. A cacher didn't need to have 100 hides in order to get a Virtual Reward.

6 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:

So am I... I dont want to be a virtual owner... too much drama that come with it. Its not worth it for me. However, I happy to see it coming back.

I'm curious to see how many Virtual caches get published in the next year. I'd be surprised if all of the cachers who received the reward actually end up 'redeeming' it.

30 minutes ago, terratin said:

Wow, just a handful of answers in this thread so far. And no hate yet Lets see what I can do with this one. Phew, what a responsibility

There is some hate are some complaints about not being chosen and about 'only 4000' in the FB post. I wouldn't be surprised if similar complaints crop up in the forums. Give it time.

Share this post

Link to post

There is some hate are some complaints about not being chosen and about 'only 4000' in the FB post. I wouldn't be surprised if similar complaints crop up in the forums. Give it time.

Limiting Virtual Rewards as a "rare commodity" will hopefully lead to high-quality submissions. ("I only get one of these, so I'd better make it a good one.") When there were no limits on submitting virtual caches, anything and everything was being submitted, placing the burden on reviewers to separate the awesome from the mundane. This was a prime reason for the demise of virtual caches. The new program is designed to prevent that.

5

Share this post

Link to post

Limiting Virtual Rewards as a "rare commodity" will hopefully lead to high-quality submissions. ("I only get one of these, so I'd better make it a good one.") When there were no limits on submitting virtual caches, anything and everything was being submitted, placing the burden on reviewers to separate the awesome from the mundane. This was a prime reason for the demise of virtual caches. The new program is designed to prevent that.

Are you saying if you submitted a not so great virtual and the reviewer deny it, you wont get a second chance?

Share this post

Link to post

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now.

3

Share this post

Link to post

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now.

Share this post

Link to post

That's nice to know I guess. How does an algorithm know the "quality" of a cache?

Do favorite points fit into that?

- There's a lot of older, popular hides that have few favorite points simply because they were added years after placed, and not many back-logged their FPs.

They could easily only look at logs since favorites were introduced, and look at the percentage of favorite points assigned.

In that case, they should look at the percentage of FPs for all of a COs finds. The first or last cache in a large powertrail might get tons of favorite points but might otherwise be an unremarkable hide.

Share this post

Link to post

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now.

A lot of yours seem to be PL only caches. I wonder if that played a part in the algorithm?

Share this post

Link to post

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now.

How is your health score?

Just like the algorithm they using for selecting the 4000 cachers that will be allowed to place a new virtual they're not providing a means for determining ones health score, how it's derived, or specifically how to improve it.

Share this post

Link to post

I am guessing there will be a certain amount of hand wringing and/or sour grapes over why someone was not chosen to place a new virtual. Can't please everyone all of the time. I like the way that GC has rolled this out. I am interested in going out and finding some of the new placed virtuals. I hope many of them are great spots!

Share this post

Link to post

Just like the algorithm they using for selecting the 4000 cachers that will be allowed to place a new virtual they're not providing a means for determining ones health score, how it's derived, or specifically how to improve it.

It's much like spam sorting algorithms, or search result relevance algorithms. To avoid playing the system, the creators really have to keep the functions under tight wrap, or it becomes ineffective to its intent, and needing further refinement. Organic algorithms are good though since people will still figure out ways and tricks to falsely improve their 'score' and visibility over time, so the developers have to keep adjusting for it with complex stats and analyses... There's been plenty of discussion about the subjecitivity of concepts like Google's search result algorithms and whatnot. It's objective in that it applies to all, but it's subjective in that the developers still have to decide what aspects and properties to prioritize and score higher than others (and which to demote). I don't doubt it's the same with Groundspeak, which is still more good enough reason for them to keep hush about it.

Share this post

Link to post

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now.

I knew it wouldn't take long...

This section of the announcement is for you:

3 hours ago, Geocaching HQ said:

I own great caches. Why wasn’t I selected for a Virtual Reward?

There are certainly more than 4,000 awesome cache hiders in the world, but we had to draw a line somewhere. We found that limiting this release to the top 1% of the results from our algorithm allowed for an ideal disbursement of new Virtual Caches around the world. No algorithm is perfect, ours included. We favored quality over quantity, but in creating our algorithm, we are sure that some great hiders were missed.